.... I... just posted a video in which Wyatt Davis played with the first team. Um... but you don't want that posted for some reason? That's... fine, I guess.
As I said in my comment, I agree that Davis never has had prolonged snaps with the first team that the press has been open to that would equate to a true legitimate look with the first team. That is a completely unassailable comment, obviously, and I never would have even thought about questioning it. But that isn't what is written in the article. The article said that Davis had never had any look at any time. How is getting snaps with the full first team in OTAs not "a look" at "some point in time"? I'm not trying to be a jerk, I just think that it is worthwhile to clarify a small semantic point because in my mind none of us should ever think accurate statements of facts as the enemy.
A ripped video from Vikings media from a non-credible source to suggest he may have stood near first-team linemen in OTAs (which tell you nothing) is not a "well actually" to what I wrote. I have nothing more to say about it.
I'm kind of not enjoying this back-and-forth here Matthew... I was trying to be overly respectful. If you don't want your readers to have discussions regarding something from your well-written article upon which it is easy to have a counterpoint, then why do you even have comments? I don't mind being told that you disagree, in fact I have had fun discussions on your comment boards in which me and another person left it pleasantly at that, but it feels distinctly *un*pleasant to respectfully suggest that there was a relatively non-meaningful semantic point that could be clarified, only to be functionally insulted and dismissed.
I don't know why you this video is being treating like some kind of conspiratorial Zapruder film that shouldn't be trusted. The Vikings posted it from their OTAs. It isn't a video of Wyatt Davis standing next to Rashod Hill in the training room, or doing jumping jacks when he is between both O'Neill and Bradbury, such that this video was nothing more than Davis standing "near" first team lineman in a frivolous/meaningless situation. It was an 11-on-11 contact drill with functionally the entire first team offense and the entire first team defense, in which Wyatt Davis participated. If you asked 100 NFL analysts, I am guessing that well over 90 would say that this means that the Vikings was in the process of giving "a look" at how Wyatt Davis was with the first team at that point in time. They don't just randomly throw rookies into these drill with all of the starters, even at OTAs. The amount of time that Zimmer can practice with the 1st team is extremely regulated and limited, such that those drills are precious.
That said, we all have minority opinions, which is fun! I like talking with people who have opinions that I disagree with, and I enjoy bringing up my opinions on things that I know that most people will disagree with. Discussing things upon which 100% of people agree is boring and typically a waste of time, IMO. I was not at all trying to insult you or demean you by suggesting that the implication from your article was one that was easily argued. I was just trying to provide some context.
I'll add one other item to this list, Matthew:
"What kind of crazy @#$! will Mike Zimmer say after the game?"
Where is Barr?
It is absolutely the truth that they've never given him a legitimate look with the first team.
.... I... just posted a video in which Wyatt Davis played with the first team. Um... but you don't want that posted for some reason? That's... fine, I guess.
As I said in my comment, I agree that Davis never has had prolonged snaps with the first team that the press has been open to that would equate to a true legitimate look with the first team. That is a completely unassailable comment, obviously, and I never would have even thought about questioning it. But that isn't what is written in the article. The article said that Davis had never had any look at any time. How is getting snaps with the full first team in OTAs not "a look" at "some point in time"? I'm not trying to be a jerk, I just think that it is worthwhile to clarify a small semantic point because in my mind none of us should ever think accurate statements of facts as the enemy.
A ripped video from Vikings media from a non-credible source to suggest he may have stood near first-team linemen in OTAs (which tell you nothing) is not a "well actually" to what I wrote. I have nothing more to say about it.
I'm kind of not enjoying this back-and-forth here Matthew... I was trying to be overly respectful. If you don't want your readers to have discussions regarding something from your well-written article upon which it is easy to have a counterpoint, then why do you even have comments? I don't mind being told that you disagree, in fact I have had fun discussions on your comment boards in which me and another person left it pleasantly at that, but it feels distinctly *un*pleasant to respectfully suggest that there was a relatively non-meaningful semantic point that could be clarified, only to be functionally insulted and dismissed.
I don't know why you this video is being treating like some kind of conspiratorial Zapruder film that shouldn't be trusted. The Vikings posted it from their OTAs. It isn't a video of Wyatt Davis standing next to Rashod Hill in the training room, or doing jumping jacks when he is between both O'Neill and Bradbury, such that this video was nothing more than Davis standing "near" first team lineman in a frivolous/meaningless situation. It was an 11-on-11 contact drill with functionally the entire first team offense and the entire first team defense, in which Wyatt Davis participated. If you asked 100 NFL analysts, I am guessing that well over 90 would say that this means that the Vikings was in the process of giving "a look" at how Wyatt Davis was with the first team at that point in time. They don't just randomly throw rookies into these drill with all of the starters, even at OTAs. The amount of time that Zimmer can practice with the 1st team is extremely regulated and limited, such that those drills are precious.
That said, we all have minority opinions, which is fun! I like talking with people who have opinions that I disagree with, and I enjoy bringing up my opinions on things that I know that most people will disagree with. Discussing things upon which 100% of people agree is boring and typically a waste of time, IMO. I was not at all trying to insult you or demean you by suggesting that the implication from your article was one that was easily argued. I was just trying to provide some context.